runn wrote:
I know the marathon is the BIG event- Olympics and all.
But what if the half is his event? He can race more- be in the public eye more.
I always felt that Ritz's best event was the half marathon.
+1
They need to add XC and the half marathon to the Olympics.
anacondarunner wrote:
Salazar has Hasay running the World Half Champs next week, so I'm not that having an "extra week" is one of the reasons why Galen ran in Rome. I mean, last year he raced Prague which was only 2 weeks before Boston I believe. I think they picked Rome for Galen because the course was comparable to Boston and Rupp was long overdue for a fast half time.
Yeah, Galen would have won this one easy today by 1 or even 2 minutes, wouldn’t have cracked 60, but would have had these folks for breakfast.
Coverage and announcing was terrible as usual. They have to understand people watching are tuning in for the race, not for views of the scenery. The announcers were so annoying. How many times was Molly Huddle mentioned? Jesus. Almost no coverage of the men's race and that was an epic battle between Ritz and True. Huge opportunity missed to capture the excitement with such atrocious coverage.
Tollefson announced well, definitely knows what it's like to be a pro. The other guy needs to learn about running. The massive advertising vs. pro coverage ratio was an insult to viewers.
Mekonnen tried to drop everyone in the park but True and RIT did well to cover and run through him. Ritz is surely fit for 26.2 these days. True is strong AF.
i am 72 years old. have been watching and running for a long time. the coverage today was just about as bad as it gets. you would think after all these year coverage in the US would get better, not worse. I feel sorry for the announcers. They have to fill in bad sound , bad camera work, ... with BS.
Part of the issue was the timing of the stagger. With the 4 men's leaders barely a minute behind the women's winners they couldn't provide coverage of the final mile of both races. NYRR should know better, 20 min stagger minimum.
Come on NYRR wrote:
Part of the issue was the timing of the stagger. With the 4 men's leaders barely a minute behind the women's winners they couldn't provide coverage of the final mile of both races. NYRR should know better, 20 min stagger minimum.
So instead of trying to cover both with a split screen they decided to cover neither?
Looks like Galen made the right call, this NYC course is hillier than past version and running into the wind means no fast times. Good effort and workout for these runners but if you are preparing for a marathon and want to see what kind of time you can run, this was not the race.
In the men’s race, afterwards Dathan Ritzenhein said Wilson Chebet, who had the fastest PB in the field, did test the field a bit on the JFK highway (the 6th mile was an unofficial 4:35),
Wrong President. FDR Drive is where mile 6 is run.
Donyiyo wrote:
anacondarunner wrote:
Salazar has Hasay running the World Half Champs next week, so I'm not that having an "extra week" is one of the reasons why Galen ran in Rome. I mean, last year he raced Prague which was only 2 weeks before Boston I believe. I think they picked Rome for Galen because the course was comparable to Boston and Rupp was long overdue for a fast half time.
Yeah, Galen would have won this one easy today by 1 or even 2 minutes, wouldn’t have cracked 60, but would have had these folks for breakfast.
He would’ve won but not by 2 minutes. Would’ve just sat in the group for at least 8 miles.
aadfssasd wrote:
... that was an epic battle between Ritz and True.
ahem.
running commenter wrote:
tartarm wrote:
How can you not get this? I submit you are out of touch with the average runner. It’s why LR will never bern more that a niche of a niche site.
I agree with wejo here, definitely not tardtarm
Ok then genuis. Let me ask you and Wejo a question. At the Super Bowl. What do they hold up. The Trophy or the game check?
At the Olypmpic, what do they hand out cash or medals?
Don’t hurt yourself trying to think.
cold nips sink ships wrote:
TVC15. wrote:
weather.com has the temperature 8:00 am Sunday morning at 28 degrees.
too cold for Yours Truly.
weather dot con is full of sh*t per nearly always; bet its not below freezing
Forecast was spot on.
2018 NYC Half Marathon 11 Parker Stinson USA 1:03:44
I have a photo on the wall in my office captioned, "Parker Stinson going for it at CIM 2017"
it shows this young man's bold bid for the win at the California International Marathon at Sacramento last year, a bid that ultimately came unravelled, but I admire a man who tries.
cheers.
Course was poorly put together . Really just a money maker for NYRR. People were jammed in at the start for 45 minutes without portapotties , no spectators in Brooklyn , huge hill getting over Manhattan Bridge , terrible wind, tough hills in Central Park , Pretty much course was just designed to get as many runners on the course as possible .
How come cycling can do a great job covering races over 100 miles long and running can't do a decent job covering races that are 13-26 miles long?
Hounddogharrier wrote:
Course was poorly put together . Really just a money maker for NYRR. People were jammed in at the start for 45 minutes without portapotties , no spectators in Brooklyn , huge hill getting over Manhattan Bridge , terrible wind, tough hills in Central Park , Pretty much course was just designed to get as many runners on the course as possible .
Agreed. This course is really slow and the weather did no help (it was freezing and strong headwind for 11 out of 13 miles). No point going all the way to Brooklyn, standing 45 minutes in freezing cold to run a couple of minutes slower than what you could run on a better course. Everyone I talked to after the race complained about the course and most are not going to sign up next year if the course remains the same. I hope the number of people signing up for this race will plummet and the NYRR will revert to the old course.
Cottonshirt wrote:
2018 NYC Half Marathon 11 Parker Stinson USA 1:03:44
I have a photo on the wall in my office captioned, "Parker Stinson going for it at CIM 2017"
it shows this young man's bold bid for the win at the California International Marathon at Sacramento last year, a bid that ultimately came unravelled, but I admire a man who tries.
cheers.
Call me crazy, but I admire a man who runs a pace he can actually *hold,* and finishes the damn race in a solid time,...
*not* a man who runs over his head and looks great for 21 out of 26, and then crashes horribly and finishes 6 minutes slower than he should've been.
Parker's race today is probably worth 1:02-flat on a flat course with no wind. That'd be a big step in the right direction, and a *lot* more impressive than the nonsense he did at CIM.
There's nothing 'heroic' about going out at a pace you have no shot to hold. This stupid worship of that kind of crap is one of the things holding lots of talented guys back.
Parker seems like a very nice kid, and I wish the best for him, but he's obviously had a long tendency towards this kind of dumbassery, and when guys like you deify him for it, it just reinforces the dumbassery, and *hurts* him.
(I'm not gonna look up the tape right now, but I distinctly remember him doing the same thing at 10K on the track at Outdoor NCAA's a few years back. ('14, maybe?) Went out with Kithuka at sub-28 pace in hot, windy conditions, when he had no shot in hell to hold that pace. If he'd run smart, like Dunbar and Rosa did, he was top 5 for sure. Instead he crashed out and got caught by the whole chase pack.
That's not admirable; it's just dumb.)
When you applaud this kind of dumb-ass racing, you *damage* American distance-running, by encouraging self-destructive behavior.
It's a bad idea. Don't do it.
Did anyone else who ran think the course was actually longer than 13.1? Mile 7 in particular on the FDR seemed long. My pacer and everyone in the group seemed shocked that we went from being on pace to being almost a minute behind. Poor guy tried his best to make up the time but basically told us he was sorry but we were on our own right before Cat Hill.
I heard at least two other pacers abandoned their signs halfway through the race. GPS seemed to be all over.
Looking at the pro men's splits you can see something similar. Hmmm...
RIP NYC Pacers wrote:
Did anyone else who ran think the course was actually longer than 13.1? Mile 7 in particular on the FDR seemed long. My pacer and everyone in the group seemed shocked that we went from being on pace to being almost a minute behind. Poor guy tried his best to make up the time but basically told us he was sorry but we were on our own right before Cat Hill.
I heard at least two other pacers abandoned their signs halfway through the race. GPS seemed to be all over.
Looking at the pro men's splits you can see something similar. Hmmm...
Mile 7 split was misplaced, but mile 8 was correct, so mile 7 was longer and mile 8 shorter. I think also the mile 11 mark was off. Overall, my GPS gave 13.3, which I would consider good enough. It is normal for the GPS to go bananas between the building in the streets of Manhattan. It is quite common to find one or more mile markers that are misplaced (although mile 7 was egregious); the pacers should be experienced enough to feel that the pace has not changed that much and figure out that the marker is off.
